Lewinsky, Schilling and Fathers of Daughters

I’m an avid fan of TED, the self described “global community, welcoming people from every discipline and culture who seek a deeper understanding of the world.”  If you haven’t checked it, I strongly encourage you to do so.  You’ll find it to be a source of learning that is beyond comparison.

When last I logged in, a trending talk was titled “The Price of Shame”.  The speaker is Monica Lewinsky.  I admit that some sense of morbid curiosity compelled me to click through.  I am not alone.  When last I checked, more than 1.7 Million people had viewed her talk. 

Her presentation was intelligent, dispassionate and courageous.  Describing herself as “patient zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously”, she asks her audience if any among them never made a serious mistake when they were 22 years old.  Of course, no one raised his or her hand. 

Public shaming as a “blood sport” (her description) must stop, she avers. 

Of course, we know what she’s talking about.  We are all astounded by news reports of young adults and teenagers committing suicide after being verbally assaulted online.  A study by Walter Torres, PhDand Raymond Bergner, PhD in the American Journal of Psychiatry reports “Individuals who have been subjected to the most severe and public of humiliations frequently experience feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. Lacking the ability to make effective appeals on their own behalf, they have no discernible way back, no avenue to recover and have a better future. Furthermore, their status as a nobody in their former community can be excruciatingly painful and may sometimes become intolerable.”  The result can be extreme violence and/or suicide.

As I listened to her, I found myself thinking of Curt Schilling.  The World Series winning pitcher with the Diamondbacks and Red Sox made news earlier this month when he outed the online attackers of his daughter, Gabby.  He had tweeted his congratulations to his daughter who will pitch softball at a college in Rhode Island next year:  Congrats to Gabby Schilling who will pitch for the Salve Regina Seahawks next year!!

The responses as described by Mr. Schilling were infused "with the word[s] rape, bloody underwear and pretty much every other vulgar and defiling word you could likely fathom began to follow."

Schilling’s response reflected anything but “helplessness and hopelessness”.  He turned the tables on the attackers by publicly identifying them.  The Huffington Post reports that some were fired or suspended once their employers learned of their antics. 

Ms. Lewinsky’s father also came to her defense in the wake of the Clinton scandal.  He defended her truthfulness in a televised interview with Barbara Walters and later threatened to sue NBC when a character in the popular TV show Law & Order: SVU used her surname as a verb to describe a sexual act. 

Fathers play an important role in the lives of their daughters.  Aside from their traditional role as provider and protector of the household, the relationship has impact on daughters’ self-esteem.  "How Dad approaches life will serve as an example for his daughter to build off of in her own life, even if she chooses a different view of the world," says Michael Austin, associate professor of philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University and editor of Fatherhood - Philosophy for Everyone: The Dao of Daddy.

I have seen this dynamic at work.  My brother-in-law has played an important and sustained role as father, surrogate father or adjunct father to my wife, our niece, his daughter and now plays an important role in his 6 year-old granddaughter’s life. Clearly, there were many other influences on their lives.  However, what they have in common is that each of them are engaging women who exude confidence who approach life with a sense of humor and passion.

What is required of us is to make sure our children know that we love them, that we care enough to come to their defense and that we will.  It’s time for fathers everywhere to stand up and take action.  It’s time to follow the example of courage and LEADERSHIP exhibited by Ms. Lewinsky and the Schillings, Curt and Gabby.

WHO WILL LEAD?

How to tell right from wrong... It ain't easy!

Do your kids think there are “moral facts”?  Are there circumstances where it is okay to lie, cheat or steal?

Philosopher and college professor Justin McBrayer concerns himself with such questions and was upset enough about what his second grader is being taught in school to air his opinion in the NY Times.  He discovered that the common core curriculum, by its definitions of fact vs. opinion, teaches our children that values (or value claims as he describes them) are not facts.  They are opinions.  

Connecting the lessons his son is being taught in the second grade to cheating on college campuses, he observes “that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.”

I sent the article to my brother who is a bit closer to this issue than I.  He has worked on education issues with Georgia’s state government and his wife spent her career teaching grammar school.  He expressed amazement that “parents of grade school children extend small things into the cause of the world’s problems.”

He’s probably right.  But, there was something about Professor McBrayer’s argument that stuck in my head.  Then, it came to me. What’s missing in his essay is any mention of a social contract, an implicit agreement among members of society who embrace a common set of values. “All Men Are Created Equal”, for example, is part of a value system that forms the basis of a social contract.  In a literal sense, it is not a fact. Some people are created smarter or stronger or prettier.  However, the statement — which is really meant to convey “All Men Have Equal Rights” — drives legislation and government enforcement of equal opportunity laws.  That is part of the social contract that we accept prima facie.

I agree with Professor McBrayer that it’s appropriate to separate mere opinions from value statements.  "Copying homework assignments is wrong" is a statement of our values and a good lesson to teach our children.

However, children’s values are learned more in their activities and day-to-day experiences than in classrooms.  Kid’s taught to play golf are charged with scoring and adhering to the rules.  There are valuable lessons in this activity that have nothing to do with fact vs. opinion.  They have to do with personal responsibility and how we treat others.  It’s a social contract of a sort.  

Another example of how children learn comes from comparing parents’ behavior to what they say.  You can tell your kid that it’s wrong to lie.  But, they learn that lying is part of the fabric of society.  If Mom tells someone how nice he or she looks and then tells Dad how awful that person looks, the kid learns that - at least in that situation - it’s okay to lie.  Ultimately, they figure out that an overwhelming number of people cheat on their taxes or steal office supplies from their employers.

Teaching kids not to lie, cheat or steal is important.  And, Professor McBrayer is right when he says, “consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts.”

However, in a world where the social contract is constantly evolving, distinguishing fact from opinion is an important skill.  People’s values go well beyond clear rules about what is right and what is wrong and our perspective is constantly changing. Witness the change in people’s attitudes about gay marriage, for example. 

Moreover, I contend that many “moral claims” are relative to culture.   In a complex global community, moral relativism is required to address society’s larger issues.  

In politics… How much should we tax the rich to provide for the poor?

In medicine… Should we administer an experimental drug to a critically ill patient?

In business… Are we treating our customers ethically?

In foreign affairs… When should we send troops to defend another nation?

In a post a few years ago (From Deadly Sin to Virtue), I quoted Barry Schwartz, a Swarthmore professor and co-author of “Practical Wisdom:  the Right Way to Do the Right Thing”.  He compares finding what’s right to jazz improvisation.  The notes are on the page but the musicians play a variation that results in beautiful music.

In American society, our response to people and institutions that are unprincipled is to create rules to govern their behavior.  But, that doesn’t work.  What we need, Schwartz asserts, is the moralwill to do the right thing and the skill to figure out what that is.

Let’s figure out how to teach that lesson to our children.

WHO WILL LEAD?

It’s Time to Replace Our Universities with…

The Madison Convention Center

Would you send your kid to a university that looks like this?  To be clear, you are looking at a picture of the convention center in Madison, WI.

Before you answer, I ask you to consider a few macroeconomic and social factors. 

A colleague in the educational publishing field recently told me that “point-in-time” certification is “dead”.  That’s the word he used – dead!  Education and the certifications or degrees that go along with it will be a lifelong endeavor, he contends.  Here’s an easy example.

How valuable is your four-year degree in computer science if you earned it in 1975?  How about 1985?  Or 1995?

2005? 

A technical degree whether in computer science, medicine or metallurgy requires constant updating to be relevant in the modern workplace.  So, what is the value of a four-year degree?

I have written about the near obsolescence of a four-year degree before.  In “Don’t Send Your Kid to College”, I advocated that parents and matriculating students demand they get an education that provides them with the skills that are essential to today’s job market. 

Of course, there is a broader perspective.  My four-year degree in Naval Engineering was quite relevant when I served as Chief Engineer of a US Navy ship.  Since then?  Not so much.

Is your education relevant to your work?

Does it need to be?

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker placed this issue front and center a few weeks ago when he proposed a $300 Million cut to the budget of the University of Wisconsin system.  Not satisfied to leave it at that, he also proposed (and later withdrew) a change to the 110 year-old mission statement, replacing a phrase about the “search for truth” with language requiring that the system meet the “state’s workforce needs”.  The governor is something of a lightening rod. So, I would ask you to set your political views aside for the moment and consider…

The college experience is more than a job-training program.  When I studied engineering, I was also required to take courses in political science, history and literature.  In those days, the ideal was expressed as producing a “well-rounded individual”. 

Following Gov. Walker’s pronouncements, Christine Evans, a history professor at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, wrote passionately about the “Wisconsin Idea” in the New York Times.  “As my students understand,” she wrote, “the humanities train critical thinkers and citizens. That may be inconvenient for politicians who see their constituents as merely a ‘work force,’ but it is definitely good for our democracy…”

In my private correspondence with Professor Evans, she expresses concern that “Faculty control of universities has also increasingly given way to [a] ‘CEO’ model for higher education that means VERY highly paid administrators make decisions without concern for universities' core missions or much of a sense of what we do or why.”  She goes on to bemoan “our legislature now demands vast reams of new paperwork so they can be sure we are ‘accountable.’” 

These criticisms ring true to me.  CEO’s drive revenue.  Their training is well suited to improve the bottom line but not necessarily the best educational outcomes.  And, I can’t see how the legislature adds any value by requiring more red tape. 

In a larger context, however, I wonder how we as a society can sustain the system. Universities raise large endowments to build gyms, libraries and dormitories, the better to attract new students. And so the cost of a college education has increased by nearly 500% since 1985. And, we all know what student loan debt is doing to young graduates. 

Meanwhile, kids who go away to college can attend courses online from their dorm rooms, all of the books in those expensive libraries are available online and 70% of classes are taught by adjunct professors, most of whom earn less than $50K per year. In other words, we are paying to maintain overhead -- facilities and faculty -- designed for a bygone era.  Why not use a smaller platform like a convention center where students attend classes online and take turns being on campus for one or two weeks per semester?

There’s more to the college experience than classes, libraries and professors, of course.  Many in my generation wax poetic when talking about their college years – the lasting relationships, the broadening of their perspectives, the chance to break away from Mom and Dad.

So, I’ll ask my opening question again, only slightly differently.  Do we, as a society, need to maintain a system that is now so expensive that fewer middle class families can afford it?  Or, can we gain the same advantage by replacing the high overhead infrastructure of our universities with a new model?

WHO WILL LEAD?